CRAWFORD v. ROSE (1935)

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

CRAWFORD v. ROSE.

Civ. 9272.

Decided: January 09, 1935

Harry D. Parker and Horace W. Danforth, both of Los Angeles, for appellant. Charles W. Gorham, of Wilmington, and Marion P. Betty, of Los Angeles, for respondent.

The petition for rehearing of this appeal is denied. Complaint is made that this court's opinion filed in our decision of the case did not discuss appellant's assignment of error of the trial court in denying the motion for a new trial, with reference to the proposed testimony of newly discovered witnesses. We think that the testimony in question is in substance only cumulative to that of other witnesses who testified at the trial. Appellant at that time knew of the existence and identity of these additional witnesses, but had not been able to locate them. It may well be that a continuance, if a motion therefor had been made, would have been granted. But no such motion was made. We think that the court was not guilty of any abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network